JUDGMENT : S.K. Ray, J. - This is an application by the accused in complaint case No. 79 of 1969, pending in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bolangir, for transferring the said criminal case from Bolangir either to Bhubaneswar or Puri for trial. His main ground is that this is a vexatious criminal proceeding initiated by the complainant with whom he had various litigations previously, and that the complainant is not keen to prosecute him in the proceeding he has instituted, but in order to get him at Bolangir where he would be able to employ Goondas to assault him and commit such physical excesses against his person. It is necessary to set out the complainants case in brief: The complainant originally belonged to village Balikudapatna in the District of Puri within the jurisdiction of Balianta P.S. The accused is a resident of a village nearby. In the year 1960, the complainant migrated from his native village to Bolangir where he has settled down. During the year of migration his younger brother got married which involved the complainant's family in heavy lcan. The younger brother of the complainant had undertaken to repay this (sic). The accused had gone to the house of the complainant at Bolangir on 29.6.1969 in connection with some business of his own. He also carried a message from the complainant's younger brother, Braja Kishore Sahu, to assist him Braja kishore, to repay the lcan and requesting his brother to Bend money through the accused-Petitioner. The accused remained in the house of the complainant at Bolangir for about 16 days and then left for home. The complainant entrusted the accused with a sum of Rs. 500/-, a gold necklace, and two rings worth of Rs. 300/-, for delivery to his younger brother Braja Kishore. The complainant subsequently learned that the accused had failed to deliver the cash and ornaments to his brother and had presumably misappropriated the same. He accordingly filed a complaint petition under Sections 420 and 405, Indian Penal Code in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bolangir. The S.D.M. took cognizance of the case which has been registered as complaint case No. 79 of 1969. 2. The complaint petition enumerates four witnesses of whom one is a witness from Bhubaneswar. He accordingly filed a complaint petition under Sections 420 and 405, Indian Penal Code in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bolangir. The S.D.M. took cognizance of the case which has been registered as complaint case No. 79 of 1969. 2. The complaint petition enumerates four witnesses of whom one is a witness from Bhubaneswar. In the facts and circumstances of the case laid as the complainant's younger brother would also be another material witness for the prosecution and for successful prosecution of the criminal proceeding, it is expected that these two witnesses of Bhubaneswas have to be examined. The accused plea for a transfer is that he is very poor and that it would cost him Rs. 100/- each time he would be attending the Court at Bolangir. That apart, he apprehends physical assault as and when he would be at Bolangir for the purpose of attending the Court. This plea of the accused involves a further plea that in view of the apprehension of physical molestation with which he would be going and attending the Court at Bolangir he will be highly prejudiced in conducting his defence. 3. Section 526, Code of Criminal Procedure sets out various ground for transfer of which two grounds are of wide amplitude. The ground in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 526 is that where a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in any criminal Court it would be a case for transfer. This ground, as is normally understood, is that where on account of adverse attitude of the Court in which the criminal proceeding is pending, there is reasonable apprehension in the mind of the accused that he would not have a fair and impartial trial. I do not see any reason why this ground should not include a case where there is no allegation against the Court, but that the situation created by the complainant is such that the accused will entertain a reasonable apprehension that he would be able to conduct his defence effectively. Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of the section is also a ground of wide amplitude. Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of the section is also a ground of wide amplitude. It provides that where the general convenience of the parties and witnesses was rants it, a transfer of the case from one Court to another may be ordered; and Clause (e) provides that a similar order for transfer may be made where it is expedient for the ends of justice that the transfer be so made. 4. In cases of transfer the, interest not only of the accused, but also of the complaiant has to be looked into. There is a general consensus of judicial opinion that in matters of transfer greater emphasis is to be laid on the conveniences and interest of the accused rather than of the prosecutor. To my mind, while doing so, the interest of the prosecutor and his right to institute criminal proceedings permissible under the law should not also be unreasonably whittled down. In cases of transfer, therefore, a balance is to be struck. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as a matter of principle. A prayer for transfer is to he considered always with reference to the facts and circumstances of each case. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has cited a number of decisions to illustrate the manner in which a petition for transfer is to be dealt with. He cited the case of P.H. Metcalfe Vs. J. Watson where it has been held: Where the accused carried on business at Gaya and the complainant at Buxar, and the offence was triable at both places, for the convenience of the accused the trial should be held at Gaya. Another case cited is the case of AIR 1926 493 (Lahore), where it was said: The convenience of the accused has to be considered rather than that of the complainant for transferring a case. The case of State v. Ram Prasad AIR 1969 Raj. 184, lays down that where in the circumstances of the case the ends of justice will be better served if the trial takes place at one place rather than at the other, the transfer should be ordered so that 'the trial may take place at the place where the ends of justice would be better served. 6. 184, lays down that where in the circumstances of the case the ends of justice will be better served if the trial takes place at one place rather than at the other, the transfer should be ordered so that 'the trial may take place at the place where the ends of justice would be better served. 6. The facts stated above, disclose that the entrustment of the articles and cash was made at Bolangir and the misappropriation took place either within the jurisdiction of Balianta P.S. within which the native place of the complainant is situated, or within Balipatna P.S. wherein the native village of the accused is situated. In either event, the place of trial would be either at Bolangir or at Bhubaneswas. Two important witnesses have to be examined in the case who belong to the jurisdictions of Balianta and Balipatna police stations and they have to go from this side to Bolangir. If the trial is held at Bhubaneswas three witnesses have to come down to Bhubaneswas from Bolangir. So from the point of view of facility of producing witnesses in Court, it will make no difference whether the trial takes place at Bolangir or at Bhubaneswas. If the case is transferred to Bhubaneswas, the complainant will have to incur expenses of coming to Bhubaneswas and bringing his witnesses. Similarly, if the trial is held at Bolangir, the accused will have the same disadvantage. Therefore, having regard to the convenience and disadvantage of the parties, the matter is equibalanced. But I find that the Petitioner's averments are that he is a poor man and can ill-afford the expenses off going to Bolangir on each day of trial which would be beyond his means, and the result would be that he would be prevented thereby from effectively prosecuting his defence. His further allegation is that there is pre-existing enmity between him and the complainant, and that the latter will manhandle him through Goonndas at Bolangir if and when he goes there on the dates of hearing. This is the main objection of the complainant. These allegations have not been controverted by the complainant opposite party by any counter-affidavit. In those circumstances, I feel that it is a case where the ends of justice would be better served by transferring the criminal case from the Court of S.D.M., Bolangir, to the Court of S.D.M., Bhubaneswas. This is the main objection of the complainant. These allegations have not been controverted by the complainant opposite party by any counter-affidavit. In those circumstances, I feel that it is a case where the ends of justice would be better served by transferring the criminal case from the Court of S.D.M., Bolangir, to the Court of S.D.M., Bhubaneswas. I, therefore, direct that the criminal proceeding (I.C.C. No. 79 of 1962) pending in the Court of the S.D.M., Bolangir, be transferred from the said Court to the Court of S.D.M., Bhubaneswas, for trial. This trial Criminal Misc. Petition is accordingly allowed. Final Result : Allowed